The number of newly registered incorporated engineers continues to decline. The strategy of the Engineering Council is clearly not aligned to supporting the engineering technologist professional. Given the governments commitment to technical education the IET should create their own professional register to provide a relevant standard. It is obvious the current UKSPEC standard lacks credibility in terms of the IEng grade
Some very good points made, but they still lead me in a direction, which is that engineers who have developed a graduate level of technical understanding and committed to ongoing professionalism are equal members of the professional engineering community. For each one a blend of formal learning, work-based learning and practical application will have optimised them differently for different roles. For most incumbent Chartered Engineers, a degree, some form of training and demonstration of significant responsibility was sufficient to gain recognition.
I’m a supporter of using competences such as UK-SPEC, which has removed some unnecessary barriers and enabled experienced engineers to be evaluated on their current capability, not just their teenage academic performance. However we have also got ourselves into a mess, “dancing on the heads of pins” about the distinction between IEng (or Technologist) and CEng. So for example “creativity and innovation” is used as a proxy for “clever and highly educated” and “management” as a proxy for higher status, or at least higher responsibility. Some of us argued during the last UK-SPEC revision for a change (underlined) , through innovation, creativity and change and/or they may have technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk . However it came to my attention recently that some regular users were unaware of this change.
I also argued that management wasn’t a valid differentiator, since many from the more practical background manage substantial resources, whilst many of the more technical may design, develop and advise. For example a City & Guilds study (2013) stated “an apprentice’s chance of becoming a director is greatest in the construction industry, with 47% of businesses in this sector employing former apprentices in board level positions. This is followed by manufacturing & engineering (43%), agriculture (33%) and energy and power (33%).” Many such directors have an engineering background, with a few having found “the long way” to CEng , others either are or were IEng , but wouldn’t want to advertise something so widely seen as an inferior pejorative. Simon’s point is also important, management and leadership activities are often about influence rather than control. I spoke with a member yesterday who having been successfully self-employed for twenty years , found it difficult to meet the UK-SPEC C competences as presented.
The IET works hard through its committees, volunteer training, procedures used to moderate a consensus etc. However, if you are the person on the “wrong end of a verdict” then this may be little consolation. Expectation management is difficult because senior professionals (typically over 35) who tend to be drawn towards registration have an expectation of gaining chartered recognition. In the past many would have been curtly informed that they didn’t have a suitable degree (or didn’t know the right people), but now they are encouraged only to find tripping points somewhere further into the maze, not obviously signposted. To borrow a cliché “sometimes it’s the hope that kills” . It can be quite humiliating to tell friends, colleagues or your employer that you are seeking chartered recognition only to experience rejection. Once again the IET advises on what deficiency was identified and how it should be addressed next time, but trying to justify or turn this into good career advice is difficult. I was an employer’s Training Manager for many years and the advice offered by PEI’s to our engineers (off the record) was “get another job, you won’t make CEng working for a contractor”. The assumption being that CEng = “Consulting Engineer”.
My suggestion respects the CEng tradition of setting a higher benchmark than is necessary to achieve Chartered recognition in other places. For example, in the latest Engineering Council newsletter they drew attention to a non UK-SPEC variety of Chartered Engineer and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” could have been possible for IEng, if a consensus could have been found to argue for it. Most CEng would not have been enthusiastic, because to return to my main point the natural question would have been- what’s the difference then? To which there isn’t a simple satisfactory answer, although some of us could no doubt write a thesis. In fact I recently commented a relevant PhD thesis. If I did one it would be classified under “social science”, simply because Engineering Council’s primary focus has been to develop and maintain for a minority of practitioners “The status of being part of a technological elite” and status is a sociological concept. Developing competence and commitment amongst practitioners of engineering beyond its minimum threshold (Eng Tech) is the mission that it is supposed to have, I think? Dividing professional engineers of broadly graduate level and beyond, into first and second class (or gold and silver if you prefer) categories is having a dysfunctional effect. Enabling competent and committed practitioners to gain enhanced recognition from their peers, following a period of monitored practice and additional achievement, seems like a great idea to me. Please tell me why I’m wrong?
Some very good points made, but they still lead me in a direction, which is that engineers who have developed a graduate level of technical understanding and committed to ongoing professionalism are equal members of the professional engineering community. For each one a blend of formal learning, work-based learning and practical application will have optimised them differently for different roles. For most incumbent Chartered Engineers, a degree, some form of training and demonstration of significant responsibility was sufficient to gain recognition.
I’m a supporter of using competences such as UK-SPEC, which has removed some unnecessary barriers and enabled experienced engineers to be evaluated on their current capability, not just their teenage academic performance. However we have also got ourselves into a mess, “dancing on the heads of pins” about the distinction between IEng (or Technologist) and CEng. So for example “creativity and innovation” is used as a proxy for “clever and highly educated” and “management” as a proxy for higher status, or at least higher responsibility. Some of us argued during the last UK-SPEC revision for a change (underlined) , through innovation, creativity and change and/or they may have technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk . However it came to my attention recently that some regular users were unaware of this change.
I also argued that management wasn’t a valid differentiator, since many from the more practical background manage substantial resources, whilst many of the more technical may design, develop and advise. For example a City & Guilds study (2013) stated “an apprentice’s chance of becoming a director is greatest in the construction industry, with 47% of businesses in this sector employing former apprentices in board level positions. This is followed by manufacturing & engineering (43%), agriculture (33%) and energy and power (33%).” Many such directors have an engineering background, with a few having found “the long way” to CEng , others either are or were IEng , but wouldn’t want to advertise something so widely seen as an inferior pejorative. Simon’s point is also important, management and leadership activities are often about influence rather than control. I spoke with a member yesterday who having been successfully self-employed for twenty years , found it difficult to meet the UK-SPEC C competences as presented.
The IET works hard through its committees, volunteer training, procedures used to moderate a consensus etc. However, if you are the person on the “wrong end of a verdict” then this may be little consolation. Expectation management is difficult because senior professionals (typically over 35) who tend to be drawn towards registration have an expectation of gaining chartered recognition. In the past many would have been curtly informed that they didn’t have a suitable degree (or didn’t know the right people), but now they are encouraged only to find tripping points somewhere further into the maze, not obviously signposted. To borrow a cliché “sometimes it’s the hope that kills” . It can be quite humiliating to tell friends, colleagues or your employer that you are seeking chartered recognition only to experience rejection. Once again the IET advises on what deficiency was identified and how it should be addressed next time, but trying to justify or turn this into good career advice is difficult. I was an employer’s Training Manager for many years and the advice offered by PEI’s to our engineers (off the record) was “get another job, you won’t make CEng working for a contractor”. The assumption being that CEng = “Consulting Engineer”.
My suggestion respects the CEng tradition of setting a higher benchmark than is necessary to achieve Chartered recognition in other places. For example, in the latest Engineering Council newsletter they drew attention to a non UK-SPEC variety of Chartered Engineer and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” could have been possible for IEng, if a consensus could have been found to argue for it. Most CEng would not have been enthusiastic, because to return to my main point the natural question would have been- what’s the difference then? To which there isn’t a simple satisfactory answer, although some of us could no doubt write a thesis. In fact I recently commented a relevant PhD thesis. If I did one it would be classified under “social science”, simply because Engineering Council’s primary focus has been to develop and maintain for a minority of practitioners “The status of being part of a technological elite” and status is a sociological concept. Developing competence and commitment amongst practitioners of engineering beyond its minimum threshold (Eng Tech) is the mission that it is supposed to have, I think? Dividing professional engineers of broadly graduate level and beyond, into first and second class (or gold and silver if you prefer) categories is having a dysfunctional effect. Enabling competent and committed practitioners to gain enhanced recognition from their peers, following a period of monitored practice and additional achievement, seems like a great idea to me. Please tell me why I’m wrong?
